Ministry of Education University Of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova Faculty of Languages and Literature Romanian Philology Chair

REPORT
Word-Groups and Phraseological Units

Written by Gandrabur Galina, L21

Checked by Dumitru Melenciuc

Chiinu, 2013

CONTENTS:

1. Word-groups..................................................................................................................3 2. Phraseologycal unities...................................................................................................7 3. Bibliography................................................................................................................13

1.Word-Groups Every utterance is a patterned, rhythmed and segmented sequence of signals. On the lexical level these signals building up the utterance are not exclusively words. Alongside with separate words speakers use larger blocks consisting of more than one word. Words combined to express ideas and thoughts make up word-groups. The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of words within word-groups may vary. Some word-groups are functionally and semantically inseparable, e.g. rough diamond, cooked goose, to stew in one's own juice. Such word-groups are traditionally described as set-phrases or phraseological units. Characteristic features of phraseological units are non-motivation for idiomaticity and stability of context. The cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. The component members in other word-groups possess greater semantic and structural independence, e.g. to cause misunderstanding, to shine brightly, linguistic phenomenon, red rose. Word-groups of this type are defined as free word-groups for free phrases. They are freely made up in speech by the speakers according to the needs of communication. Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semi-fixed combinations. All these different stages of restrictions imposed upon co-occurance of words, upon the lexical filling of structural patterns which are specific for every language. The restriction may be independent of the ties existing in extra-linguistic reality between the object spoken of and be conditioned by purely linguistic factors, or have extralinguistic causes in the history of the people. In free word-combination the linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties of words. Free word-groups of syntactically connected notional words within a sentence, which by itself is not a sentence. This definition is recognised more or less universally in this country and abroad. Though other linguistics define the term word-group differently - as any group of words connected semantically and grammatically which does not make up a sentence by itself. From this point of view words-components of a word-group may belong to any part of speech, therefore such groups as the morning, the window, and Bill are also considered to be word-groups (though they comprise only one notional word and one form-word). Structurally word-groups may be approached in various ways. All word-groups may be analysed by the criterion of distribution into two big classes. Distribution is understood as the whole complex of contexts in which the given lexical unit can be used. If the word-group has the same linguistic distribution as one of its members, It is described as endocentric, i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group. The wordgroups, e.g. red flower, bravery of all kinds, are distributionally identical with their central components flower and bravery: I saw a red flower - I saw a flower. I appreciate bravery of all kinds - I appreciate bravery. If the distribution of the word-group is different from either of its members, it is regarded as exocentric, i.e. as having no such central member, for instance side by side or grow smaller
3

and others where the component words are not syntactically substitutable for the whole wordgroup. In endocentric word-groups the central component that has the same distribution as the whole group is clearly the dominant member or the head to which all other members of the group are subordinated. In the word-group red flower the head is the noun flower and in the word-group kind of people the head is the adjective kind. Word-groups are also classified according to their syntactic pattern into predicative and nonpredicative groups. Such word-groups, e.g. John works, he went that have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence, are classified as predicative, and all others as non-predicative. Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided according to the type of syntactic relation between the components into subordinative and coordinative. Such word-groups as red flower, a man of wisdom and the like are termed subordinative in which flower and man are head-words and red, of wisdom are subordinated to them respectively and function as their attributes. Such phrases as woman and child, day and night, do or die are classified as coordinative. Both members in these word-groups are functionally and semantically equal. Subordinative word-groups may be classified according to their head-words into nominal groups (red flower), adjectival groups (kind to people), verbal groups (to speak well), pronominal (all of them), statival (fast asleep). In such nominal word-grups as e.g. very great bravery, bravery in the struggle the noun bravery is the head whether followed or preceded by other words. The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group red flower may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red and flower. It should be pointed out, however, that the term combined lexical meaning is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive result of all the lexical meaning of the component members. As a rule, the meaning of the component words are mutually dependant and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the lexical meanings of its constituents. Word-groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. Such word-groups as school grammar and grammar school are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words. It is assumed that the structural pattern of word-group is the carrier of a certain semantic component which does not necessarily depend on the actual lexical meaning of its members. In the example discussed above school grammar the structural meaning of the word-grup may be be abstracted from the group and described as "quality-substance meaning. This is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the word-group but not by either the word school or the word grammar. It follows that we have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.
4

The lexical and structural components of meaning in word-groups are interdependent and inseparable. The inseparability of these two semantic components in word-groups can be illustrated by the semantic analysis of individual word-groups in which the norms of conventional collocability of words seem to be deliberately overstepped. For instance, in the word-group all the sun long we observe a departure from the norm of lexical valency represented by such word-groups as all the day long, all the night long, all the week long, and a few others. The structural pattern of these word-groups in ordinary usage and the wordgroup all the sun long is identical. The generalised meaning of the pattern may be described as "a unit of time". Replacing day, night, week by another noun the sun we do not find any change in the structural meaning of the pattern. The group all the sun long functions semantically as a unit of time. The noun sun, however, included in the group continues to carry its own lexical meaning (not "a unit of time") which violates the norms of collocability in this word-group. It follows that the meaning of the word-group is derived from the combined lexical meanings of its constituents and is inseparable from the meaning of the pattern of their arrangement. Two basic linguistic factors which unite words into word-groups and which largely account for their combinability are lexical valency or collocability and grammatical valency. Words are known to be used in lexical context, i.e. in combination with other words. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations, with other words is qualified as its lexical collocability or valency. The range of a potential lexical collocability of words is restricted by the inner structure of the language wordstock. This can be easily observed in the examples as follows: though the words bend, curl are registered by the dictionaries as synonyms their collocability is different, for they tend to combine with different words: e.g. to bend a bar/ wire/pipe/ bow/ stick/ head/ knees to curl hair/ moustache/ a hat brim/waves/ lips. There can be cases of synonymic groups where one synonym would have the widest possible range of llbility (like shake which enters combinations with an immense number of words including earth, air, mountains, onvictions, beliefs, spears, walls, souls, tablecloths, bosoms, carpets etc.) while another will have the limitation inherent in its semantic structure (like wag which means < to shake a thing by one end >, and confined to rigid group of nouns - tail, finger, head, tongue, beard, chin). There is certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any intentional departure from this norm is qualified as a stylistic device, e.g.: tons of words, a life ago, years of dust. Words traditionally collocated in speech tend to make up so called cliches or traditional word combinations. In traditional combinations words retain their full semantic independence although they are limited in their combinative power (e.g.: to wage a war, to render a service, to make friends). Words in traditional combinations are combined according to the patterns of grammatical structure of the given language. Traditional combinations fall into structural types as: 1.V+N combinations. E.G.: deal a blow, bear a grudge, take a fancy etc
5

2.V+ preposition +N: fall into disgrace, go into details, go into particular, take into account, come into being etc. 3. V + Adj.: work hard, rain heavily etc. 4. V + Adj.: set free, make sure, put right etc. 5. Adj. + N.: maiden voyage, ready money, dead silence, feline eyes, aquiline nose, auspicious circumstances etc. 6. N + V: time passes / flies / elapses, options differ, tastes vary etc. 7. N + preposition + N: breach of promise, flow of words, flash of hope, flood of tears. Grammatical combinability also tells upon the freedom of bringing words together. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (syntactic) structures is termed grammatical valency. The grammatical valency of words may be different. The range of it is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. This statement, though, does not entitle to say that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is identical. E.g.: the two synonyms clever and intelligent are said to posses different grammatical valency as the word clever can fit the syntactic pattern of Adj. + preposition at + N clever at physics, clever at social sciences, whereas the word intelligent can never be found in exactly the same syntactic pattern. Unlike frequent departures from the norms of lexical valency, departures from the grammatical valency norms are not admissible unless a speaker purposefully wants to make the word group unintelligible to native speakers. Thus, the main approaches towards word groups classification are as follows: 1. According to the criterion of distribution word-groups are classified into: endocentric e.g. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word group; exocentric e.g. having the distribution different from that of either of its members. Here component words are met syntactically substituable for the whole word group. E.g.: red flower - the word group whose distribution does not differ from the distribution of its head word, the noun flower. As in I gave her a red flower. I gave her a flower; E.g.: Side by side, by leaps and bounds. 2. According to the syntactic pattern word-groups are classified into: predicative They knew; Children believe; Weather permitting; coordinative say or die; come and go; subordinative a man of property, domesticated animals. 3. According to the part of speech the head word belongs to subordinative free word groups may fail into: nominal stone, wall, wild, life, adjectival necessary to know, kind to people, verbal work hard, go smoothly, adverbial very fluently, rather sharply, very well, so quickly. numerical five of them, hundreds of refugees; pronominal some of them, all of us, nothing to do; statival: fast ,asleep, full, aware.
6

Word-groups may be also analyzed from the point of view of their motivation. Word groups may be described as lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the meaning of its components. The degrees of motivation may be different and range from complete motivation to lack of it. Free word - groups, however, are characterised by complete motivation, as their components carry their individual lexical meanings. 2. Phraseologycal unities Phraseological unit is a non-motivated word-group that cannot be freely made up in speech but is reproduced as a ready made unit. Reproducibility is regular use of phraseological units in speech as single unchangeable collocations. Idiomaticity is the quality of phraseological unit, when the meaning of the whole is not deducible from the sum of the meanings of the parts. Stability of a phraseological unit implies that it exists as a ready- made linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its lexical components of grammatical structure. In lexicology there is great ambiguity of the terms phraseology and idioms. Opinions differ as to how phraseology should be defined, classified, described and analysed. The word "phraseology has very different meanings in Great Britain or the United States, In linguistic literature the term is used for the expressions where the meaning of one element is dependent on the other, irrespective of the structure and properties of the unit (V.V. Vinogradov); with other authors it denotes only such set expressions which do not possess expressiveness or emotional colouring (A.I. Smirnitsky), and also vice versa: only those that are imaginative, expressive and emotional (I.V.Arnold). N.N. Amosova calls such expressions fixed context units, i.e. units in which it is impossible to substitute any of the components without changing the meaning not only of the whole unit but also of the elements that remain intact. O.S. Ahmanova insists on the semantic integrity of such phrases prevailing over the structural separateness of their elements. A.V. Koonin lays stress on the structural separateness of the elements in a phraseological unit, on the change of meaning in the whole as compared with its elements taken separately and on a certain minimum stability. In English and American linguistics no special branch of study exists, and the term "phraseology" has a stylistic meaning, according to Webster's dictionary 'mode of expression, peculiarities of diction, i.e. choice and arrangement of words and phrases characteristic of some author or some literary work'. Difference in terminology ("set-phrases", "idioms", "word-equivalents") reflects certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish types of phraseological units and free word-groups. The term "set phrase" implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups.

The term "idiom" generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. The term "word-equivalent" stresses not only semantic but also functional inseparability of certain word groups, their aptness to function in speech as single words. The essential features of phraseological units are: a) lack of semantic motivation; b) lexical and grammatical stability. As far as semantic motivation is concerned phraseological units are extremely varied from motivated (by simple addition of denotational meaning) like a sight for sore eyes and to know the ropes to partially motivated (when one of the words is used in a not direct meaning) or to demotivated (completely non-motivated) like tit for tat, red-tape. Lexical and grammatical stability of phraseological units is displayed in the fact that no substitution of any elements whatever is possible in the following stereotyped (unchangeable) set expressions, which differ in many other respects; all the world and his wife, red tape, calf love, heads or tails, first night, to gild the pill, to hope for the best, busy as a bee, fair and square, stuff and nonsense time and again. In a free phrase the semantic correlative ties are fundamentally different. The information is additive and each element has a much greater semantic independence where each component may be substituted without affecting the meaning of the other: cut bread, cut cheese, eat bread. Information is additive in the sense that the amount of information we had on receiving the first signal, i.e. having heard or read the word cut, is increased, the listener obtains further details and learns what is cut. The reference of cut is unchanged. Every notional word can form additional syntactic ties with other words outside the expression. In a set expression information furnished by each element is not additive: actually it does not exist before we get the whole. No substitution for either cut or figure can be made without completely ruining the following: I had an uneasy fear that he might cut a poor figure beside all these clever Russian officers (Shaw). He was not managing to cut much of a figure (Murdoch). The only substitution admissible for the expression cut a poor figure concerns the adjective. Semantic approach stresses the importance of idiomaticity, functional - syntactic inseparability, contextual - stability of context combined with idiomaticity. In his classification of V.V. Vinogradov developed some points first advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally. The classification is based upon the motivation of the unit, i.e. the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of its component parts. The degree of motivation is correlated with the rigidity, indivisibility and semantic unity of the expression, i.e with the possibility of changing the form or the order of components, and of substituting the whole by a single word. According to the type of motivation three types of phraseological units are suggested, phraseological combinations, phraseological unities, and phraseological fusions. The Phraseological Collocations (Combinations), are partially motivated, they contain one component used in its direct meaning while the other is used figuratively: meet the demand, meet the necessity, meet the requirements.

Phraseological unities are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated. The emotional quality is based upon the image created by the whole as in to stick (to stand) to one's guns, i.e. refuse to change one's statements or opinions in the face of opposition', implying courage and integrity. The example reveals another characteristic of the type, the possibility of synonymic substitution, which can be only very limited, e. g. to know the way the wind is blowing. Phraseological fusions, completely non-motivated word-groups, (e.g. tit for tat), represent as their name suggests the highest stage of blending together. The meaning of components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the whole, by its expressiveness and emotional properties. Phraseological fusions are specific for every language and do not lend themselves to literal translation into other languages. Semantic stylistic features contracting set expressions into units of fixed context are simile, contrast, metaphor and synonymy. For example: as like as two peas, as ld as the hills and older than the hills (simile); from beginning to end, for love or money, more or less, sooner or later (contrast); a lame duck, a pack of lies, arms race, to swallow the pill, in a nutshell (metaphor); by leaps and bounds, proud and haughty (synonymy). A few more combinations of different features in the same phrase are: as good as gold, as pleased as Punch, as fit as a fiddle (alliteration, simile); now or never, to kill or cure (alliteration and contrast). More rarely there is an intentional pun: as cross as two sticks means 'very angry'. This play upon words makes the phrase jocular. There are, of course, other cases when set expressions lose their metaphorical picturesqueness, having preserved some fossilised words and phrases, the meaning of which is no longer correctly understood. For instance, the expression buy a pig in a poke may be still used, although poke 'bag' (cf. pouch, pocket) does not occur in other contexts. Expressions taken from obsolete sports and occupations may survive in their new figurative meaning. In these cases the euphonic qualities of the expression are even more important. A muscular and irreducible phrase is also memorable. The muscular feeling is of special importance in slogans and battle cries. Saint George and the Dragon for Merrie England, the medieval battle cry, was a rhythmic unit to which a man on a horse could swing his sword. The modern Scholarships not battleships! can be conveniently scanned by a marching crowd. N.N. Amosova's approach is contextological. She defines phraseological units as units of fixed context. Fixed context is defined as a context characterised by a specific and unchanging sequence of definite lexical components, and a peculiar semantic relationship between them. Units of fixed context are subdivided into phrasemes and idioms. Phrasemes are always binary: one component has a phraseologically bound meaning, the other serves as the determining context (small talk, small hours, small change). In idioms the new meaning is created by the whole, though every element may have its original meaning weakened or even completely lost: in the nick of time 'at the exact moment'. Idioms may be motivated or demotivated. A motivated idiom is homonymous to a free phrase, but this phrase is used figuratively: take the bull by the horns 'to face dangers without fear. In the nick of time is demotivated, because the word nick is obsolete. Both phrasemes and idioms may be movable (changeable) or immovable.
9

A.V. Koonin's classification is based on the functions of the units fulfil in speech. They may be nominating (a bull in a china shop), interjectinal (a pretty kettle of fish), communicative (familiarity breeds contempt), or nominating-communicative (pull somebody's leg). Further classification into subclasses depends on whether the units are changeable or unchangeable, whether the meaning of the one element remains free, and, more generally, on the interdependence between the meaning of the elements and the meaning of the set expression. Formal classification distinguishes set expressions that are nominal phrases: the root of the trouble; verbal phrases: put one's best foot forward; adjectival phrases: as good as gold; red as a cherry; adverbial phrases; from head to foot; prepositional phrases: in the course of; conjunctional phrases: as long as, on the other hand, interjectional phrases: Well, I never! A stereotyped sentence also introduced into speech as a ready-made formula which may be illustrated by: Never say die! 'never give up hope', take your time 'do not hurry. This classification takes into consideration not only the type of component parts but also the functioning of the whole, thus, tooth and nail is not a nominal but an adverbial unit, because it serves to modify a verb (e. g. fight tooth and nail). Within each of these classes a further subdivision is as follows: a) Set expressions functioning like nouns: N+N: maiden name 'the surname of a woman before she was married'; brains trust 'a committee of experts' N's+N: cat's paw 'one who is used for the convenience of a cleverer and stronger person' (the expression comes from a fable in which a monkey wanting to eat some chestnuts that were on a hot stove, but not wishing to burn himself while getting them, seised a cat and holding its paw in his own used it to knock the chestnuts to the ground) Ns'+N: ladies' man 'one who makes special effort to charm or please women'. N+prp+N: the arm of the law, skeleton in the cupboard. N+A: blight errant (the phrase is today applied to any chivalrous man ready to help and protect oppressed and helpless people). N+and+N: lord and master 'husband'; all the world and his wife. A+N: high tea 'an evening meal which combines meat or some similar extra dish with the usual tea'. N+ subordinate clause: ships that pass in the night 'chance acquaintances'. b) Set expressions functioning like verbs: V+N: take advantage V+and+V: pick and choose V+(one's)+N+(prp): snap one's fingers at V+one+N: give one the bird 'to fire smb' V+subordinate clause: see how the land lies 'to discover the state of affairs'. c) Set expressions functioning like adjectives: A+and+A: high and mighty (as)+A+as+N: as old as the hills, as mad as a hatter
10

d) Set expressions functioning like adverbs: N+N: tooth and nail prp+N: by heart, of course adv+prp+N: once in a blue moon prp+N+or+N: by hook or by crook cj+clause: before one can say Jack Robinson e)Set expressions functioning like prepositions: prp+N+prp: in consequence of f)Set expressions functioning like interjections: these are often structured as imperative sentences: Bless (one's) soul! God bless me! Hang it (all)! 4. Phraseological stability is based upon: a)the stability of use; b)the stability of meaning; c)lexical stability; d)syntactic stability; e)rhythmic characteristics, rhyme and imagery. 5. Proverbs, sayings, familiar quotations and cliches. The place of proverbs, sayings and familiar quotations with respect to set expressions is a controversial issue. A proverb is a short familiar epigrammatic saying expressing popular wisdom, a truth or a moral lesson in a concise and imaginative way. Proverbs have much in common with set expressions, because their lexical components are also constant, their meaning is traditional and mostly figurative, and they are introduced into speech ready-made. Another reason why proverbs must be taken into consideration together with set expressions is that they often form the basis of set expressions. E. g. the last straw breaks the camel's back: the last straw; a drowning man will clutch at a straw:clutch at a straw; it is useless to lock the stable door when the steed is stolen: :lock the stable door. As to familiar quotations, they are different from proverbs in their origin. They come from literature and become part of the language, so that many people using them do not even know that they are quoting, and very few could accurately name the play or passage on which they are drawing even when they are aware of using a quotation from W. Shakespeare. The Shakespearian quotations have become and remain extremely numerous they have contributed enormously to the store of the language. Very many come from "Hamlet", for example: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark; Brevity is the soul of wit; The rest is silence; Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio. Some quotations are so often used that they come to be considered cliches. The term is used to denote such phrases as have become hackneyed and stale. Being constantly and mechanically repeated they have lost their original expressiveness. The following are perhaps
11

the most generally recognised: the acid test, ample opportunities, astronomical figures, the arms of Morpheus, to break the ice, the irony of fate, etc

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. .. . - ., 1970 2. Goursky S.E. The Idiomatic Heart of the Language. Lvov, 1975 3. http://www.bsu.by/Cache/pdf/229523.pdf

13